A Drug-Free World
A Drug Free World: Reloaded
The protests outside were great,
because it focused attention on the real people.
I don't think a lot of the delegates inside have thought about the people that are involved
in the words that they're throwing around.
And to see people with an alternative point of view,
and to see messages that weren't the messages
that they were hearing on the inside,
is really positive and powerful.
One of the most disappointing things at this event,
or this conference, this meeting,
is hearing the stupidity and the ignorance of some of these people
that are speaking for the civilians in their countries.
They don't know what they're talking about.
The event that brings us here today,
as well as next week,
is of double historical significance
to all of those involved in the fight against illicit drugs.
In particular,
the group is deeply concerned about the continuance
and increase in the consumption of illicit drugs
and the deviation for illicit uses of psychotropic substances
In this historical gathering,
let us all remember that if we do not respond,
jointly and consistently to the drug problem,
the drug problem will end up knocking at everybody's door.
Thank you madame chair.
Thank you madame for your statement,
the next speaker on my list is...
The diplomats are out of touch.
They have no contact with people who use drugs,
with people in recovery and their families.
They are more interested in putting forth their country statement,
which often has no bearing on reality.
Where people are ill and need support.
We are searching for government delegates
to ask them what do they think about the meeting.
Can I have a few questions with you?
-- No, no, no, no
Can I have a question, a few questions for you?
-- Ah, no. I have no time, excuse me.
-- I'm not sure that I have time.
--Thank you, but the only one is Ambassador _ who is allowed to give any kind of digression.
Thank you.
Sir, excuse me, may I have a few questions to you?
How do you consider the past ten years of the global drug control system?
-- Ah well, I should say that it has some very good plus points.
It may not be 100% human but at least 60% is human
We are on a good track?
--Definitely yes.
We are on a good track. Well thank you very much
--Thank you. Have a nice conference.
--The fact that harm reduction is missing from this conference is very frustrating,
because it is the main progress made these past three years.
Do people know about this conference in Cyprus?
--No, not especially
Media writes about it?
--We read about it, I'm from the anti-drugs council,
but the general public doesn't know about it.
Thank you. --Thank you.
I think over time the change in the administration in the U.S.
and the change in the direction is going to make a big difference for UN policies.
I think, unfortunately, that the timing of this meeting was wrong.
If it had been in a year, even six or eight months,
it would have had a different result than what we have now.
The U.S. delegation has been friendly to U.S. NGO's.
This is quite a change from the past eight years.
1998 UNGASS adopted a political declaration with the aim of eliminating or significantly reducing the demand and supply of illicit drugs within 10 years
After 10 years, it is obvious that the UN has failed to achieve this goal.
When the review of the UNGASS process, the 1998 UNGASS process,
began to be discussed back in 2006, 2005-2006,
the EU decided that it wanted a proper evaluation
before we would accept a new declaration in 2008-2009.
Insofar as the evidence and the data suggests,
things have changed but things haven't really improved very much since 1998.
Is there any evidence that policy can make a difference?
And here we concluded that
there is very little that suggests that tougher enforcement can reduce drug use.
And the way that’s supposed to happen is primarily that
you make drugs more expensive and less available,
and there's simply no evidence, indeed quite to the contrary,
drug prices in the West have generally been declining and declining quite sharply.
Prevention is a fine idea,
and someday no doubt we will work out how to do it,
but that’s some time off.
It's clear that many programs that are being implemented in schools
are fundamentally flawed and they're badly implemented.
So prevention doesn't seem to play a major role in drugs at the moment.
The one program area where there is evidence that it makes a difference is treatment.
But it's important to notice what treatment does.
Treatment can reduce the amount the drug users use,
it doesn't cut down on the number of drug users.
The only way to seriously affect the supply and demand for drugs
is to raise the conditions that people are living in.
To remove poverty, to empower people in society,
to give people a purpose in their lives.
Those are all things that will help people find a different relationship with drug taking.
We also have to ask:
is it really an objective to stop human beings taking mind altering substances?
Just down the corridor, we have a special room set aside for delegates
that allows them to smoke cigarettes,
in a room that protects the rest of the conference from the harms associated with smoking.
So already this conference is recognizing the need for harm reduction in its own behavior.
What we need to work towards
is helping them understand that we should all be applying those policies all around the world.
So yeah, we need to move forward.
1998, Did they learn the lesson?
No. Not at all
The 2009 UNGASS adopted a political declaration with the aim of eliminating or significantly reducing the demand and supply of illicit drugs within 10 years.
The goals, the targets, the aspirations from the old political declaration have been repeated.
There have been months of negotiation saying:
we need to be more honest, we haven't met these targets, and in fact,
we've ignored the fact that drug use and drug harm is increasing in developing countries.
So you can't talk about containment,
you can't say we've been successful,
and so to repeat, those targets and those aspirations.
Is foolish.
Any government and any authority likes to claim success for its policies,
and it is difficult, I know from my experience,
to openly acknowledge failure,
you're political enemies make capital out of it.
But this was such clear situation that
that the ten year objectives had not been met.
Any statesmen like organization would be expected to acknowledge this clearly
and review the range of strategies available to respond.
What the CND did primarily was pretend there was some success,
and there was none to report,
and try to say that if we carry on doing the same things
then further success is around the corner.
This is not responsible policy making in my view.
The formal declaration is like the emperor’s new clothes,
It’s an illusion.
We say "within ten years we will eradicate drug taking,
we are really on the way to sorting out the drug problems."
In reality the drug problems get worse,
they effect more people, they do more harm.
Maybe the vision should be more along the lines of peace.
We've couched what we've done for drugs in terms as a war,
a war against criminals,
a war against plants, a war against people,
a war against people who use drugs.
Maybe we should think in terms of the peace vision.
Transcribing: Anna Fischer, Subtitles: Hunter Holliman